Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is similar to Cisco FMC, for centralized management and monitoring of multiple Palo Alto firewalls. You can push your configuration from Palo Alto Networks Panorama to all your Palo Alto Networks firewalls. You then receive different data reports, threat reports, threat logs, and system logs. You don't need to log into each firewall to get that information or configure it because you can see or do it all in Palo Alto Networks Panorama. If there is any issue or link failure, you'll find that information on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, so the product is best for the centralized management of firewalls.

For a few projects, we used Palo Alto Panorama to manage the firewalls.

A valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is reporting because it gives you different reports on data, logs, and threats. It has easy policy management and control, NAT, PBF, decryption, and visibility.

I also like the centralized firewall management feature of the product.

The technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is responsive.

A bottleneck in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the licensing. The pricing and licensing model for the product is expensive and can be complicated, or it could be because I'm more familiar with Cisco licensing, which I find brilliant and easy, compared to Panorama licensing, which could be hell.

Another area for improvement in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is report generation.

It is expensive and suitable mostly in big enterprise environment.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for nine years.

It is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is very responsive. The support staff will call you even after the case is closed, asking you how the support was and that he hopes the same issue doesn't resurface. Panorama support is excellent.

Positive

I found the initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama easy.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more expensive than its counterpart Cisco FMC, although I have some clients who don't care about the budget but care more about extra features.

Recently, my company upgraded the version of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for one of the clients, version 10.0.

If you are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the first time, I'll advise you not to use it if you only have one to two firewalls or if you only have a small environment. Better use the product if you have four to six firewalls and want centralized management.

I'll also tell you that Palo Alto Networks Panorama requires a higher level of technicality, so you must study a lot before using it. It would be best to familiarize yourself with licensing, threat protection, decryption policies, app override, DoS protection, etc. Still, I can say that Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an excellent product to use.

My rating for the product is eight out of ten.

I'm a customer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

We have firewalls in different locations and we want to manage them centrally to see all the information available. The best way to do this is by using this solution, we are able to monitor, manage, and have visibility of the networks.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the ability to manage our devices centrally. Additionally, we can monitor the workforce connections, receive reports, and use the backup feature.

There are times when we are backing up a device centrally, we do not get a full backup. We are able to do a full backup of all the devices but when we attempt to backup a single device, it only does the backup of a few presets and not the full configuration.

In the future, they could improve by providing better management of the devices, such as bandwidth. 

I have been using the solution within the last 12 months.

The stability is good.

The solution is scalable. You are able to go through this solution and download from the internet upgrades to push them to the certain devices that need it.

The technical support is good. I receive a resolution from the technical support whenever I have dealt with them.

We sometimes have difficulty with the deployment configuration.

The solution requires a license and the price is higher than competitors. It would be better for them to decrease the price or maximize the discount.

I would recommend this solution to others if you have multiple sites and you want to manage them centrally.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for long-term traffic blocks when our management needs to receive information on specific events or for theory testing. Panorama sits on the firewall and manages traffic blocking.

The solution is easy to use. 

The central firewall management could be better. 

I've been working with Panorama for two years. 

The solution is stable; we didn't have any downtime.

Our IT department has around four users who manage the solution, and another department has over ten end users.

We contacted technical support in Hong Kong, provided by a local partner of Panorama, and they aren't the best; there is room for improvement.

Neutral

Another division handled the initial setup, but they said the deployment should be easy as it doesn't require complex tasks. It's simple to open the software and configure the tool.

The solution is relatively cheap; I rate it four out of five for affordability. 

I evaluated another solution, but Panorama is easy to use and deploy, plus the performance is better. I can quickly install policies.

I rate the product seven out of ten. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has a lot of features.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be better.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately four years.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good. We have middle to large enterprises using this solution.

The technical support is very good and they are at the top of the class.

If the customer doesn't have the budget, I recommend Fortinet. It is not the same level as Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but for a budget, it is an advantage. Check Point is a little bit complex, compared to Palo Alto. If the customer is looking for the technical specifications then Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the best. If the customer is on a budget, there are alternatives.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is easy and takes approximately one day.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive.

All my clients are happy and satisfied with the solution. We can strongly recommend it to others.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

It is essentially a lightweight SIEM, so it'll detect and flag any sort of vulnerabilities or attacks on your network.

I've been using the most recent version of it. In terms of deployment, it is on the cloud. It is a private cloud. It is Palo Alto's Cloud, and I think they host on AWS.

It centralized the management of our Palo Alto systems. It provided more visibility into what was going on. It sort of gave a single painted glass picture instead of 25 different pictures.

Panorama enables you to provision all your firewalls and other things as a cluster. It is quite useful for that.

It is a very simple product. It does what it is designed to do.

Its UI and usability could be improved. The way the UI looks could be improved to make it a little bit more intuitive. Other than that, it is a pretty simple product.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

It is 100% stable.

It is highly scalable. It is pretty much infinite.

In terms of the users, the Firewall Management team and the Security team use it. There are probably only 10 people who really have access to it. They also take care of its maintenance.

It is being used extensively at the moment. Its usage will just kind of naturally grow over time. As we deploy more devices, we'll put them into Panorama for management.

Palo Alto is very good at technical support. They're a 10 out of 10. They're very good.

We used FireMon in the past. It does a little bit more, but it is not as tightly integrated as the Palo Alto solution.

It was very straightforward and very simple. I helped them roll it out and watch them spin it up. I didn't do anything configuration-wise, but I think it took us 10 minutes. It was that fast.

It was done in-house.

Its licensing is yearly and multi-yearly. It is not expensive.

Be prepared for simple. It is not complicated. You're up and running in 10 minutes, so you'll be surprised.

It is only for Palo Alto products, so you can't scale it to anything else. It does what it is designed to do, which is to manage Palo Alto firewalls and other Palo Alto equipment.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10. It is a pretty simple platform; it is just the UI that can be made a little more intuitive. That's it.

We primarily use the product for security purposes. 

Security is the most valuable aspect of this solution. We find that the security level is very high.

The user interface is very good. it's easy to navigate and very user-friendly.

The installation process is very simple.  

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been good.

We have found the technical support to be very helpful.

The configuration could be a bit better. For us, it's a critical aspect. We've noticed Cisco may be better in this regard. 

We only recently upgraded the solution within the last six months.

The stability of Palo Alto is good. We don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. Users can expand it if they need to.

Technical support from Palo Alto has been very good. We are quite satisfied with the service we receive. 

The installation process is not overly complex or difficult. It's very easy and quite straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with it.

We've looked at Cisco and noted that configurations seem to be easier using that product as opposed to Palo Alto. That said, Palo Alto is okay and still manageable. 

We are just customers and end-users.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We have been quite pleased with its capabilities.

At this time, I would definitely recommend the solution to other companies and organizations. 

This product is part of our overall security solution.

The most valuable feature is the Threat Intelligence.

It is easy to use.

I would like to have better analytics.

The network traffic analysis (NTA) is something that you can add on to get more insight from the traffic passing through the firewall, and it should be included.

We have been working with Panorama for at least five to six years.

Palo Alto Panorama is a stable product.

We did not have any challenges with respect to scalability.

Our team has managed properly so we have not often needed to contact technical support. I would say that they are okay, as we have not had any problems with them.

We are currently using several different firewalls. There is Check Point, Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. Check Point was the first one that we used.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took a couple of weeks to deploy.

Our in-house team handled the deployment and is responsible for maintenance.

Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well.

My advice to anybody who is looking at this solution is that it is easy and straightforward to use, although more difficult than some to deploy. It is expensive but if you can afford it, then it's worth it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are dealing with Palo Alto Networks as a firewall.

Panorama provides management functionalities.

Integration between Panorama and the Edge Firewall has a lot of issues, like different configuration assets, configuration object templates, lack of flexibility, and not a good browser. It needs improvement in saving and synchronization.

We have been dealing with Panorama for one year.

There is no issue about performance. However, keeping the communication between Panorama and the Edge Firewall is a big issue if there is a different configuration version between both Panorama and Firewall.

We are not working over a complex network, but Panorama manages about six to eight firewalls. We may face a lot of issues when scaling up.

The first layer of support is not very good. The second layer is better.

Neutral

We switched from a different solution.

Panorama has a lot of issues accessing and configuring the firewall or deploying the firewall from Panorama. I'd rate the solution five out of ten.